Ferrer, victim of his era or less talented?

I think the movement on grass (which is totally different from hard court) is what hurts Ferrer more than the surface speed. The same can be said of Safin or Davydenko, both of whom were very good on fast hard courts but couldn't play at even close to their potential on grass. Still, Ferrer hammered Del Potro at Wimbledon last year and was very close to taking a 2-0 lead on Andy Murray in the quarterfinals.

There is no great disparity between Ferrer's fast court results and slow court results, and if you break down his game it seems well suited for any surface speed. There is just little basis for your assertion that he has hugely benefitted from slow courts.

Click to expand...

Safin never got a chance at Wimbledon; 2003 he was injured, 2004 he had blisters, don't even want to speak about how injury messed him up in 2005 and am not going to speak of how 2006 onwards was because of 2005.

Prime to prime Ferrer is way better on clay, is surprisingly better indoors (Ferrer has a WTF final and a Masters title indoors, neither which Roddick has,, Roddick surprisingly has virtually no results indoors and got spanked by Ferrer at the 07 WTF in the semis), and roughly equal on very slow hard courts like Australia. Roddick is much better on fast hard courts grass, and better on medium faced hard courts. I agree Roddick is better but when you break it down by the various surfaces it is actually closer than one might think.

Click to expand...

Roddick has 4 AO SF compared to Ferrer's two and also has 2 Miami titles and a IW final, they're not roughly equal on slow HC, Roddick is plain better.

Regardless IMO in this case there's no need to break it down surface by surface when Roddick's whole career is clearly superior to Ferrer's by a good margin.

I mean Roddick has 5 slam finals, reached #1 and finished the year in top 10 for almost a decade, Ferrer took forever to win a freakin masters title, there's just no comparison.

His style of play is very consistent and relentless, but because he is so one dimensional he can't beat the top guys. I don't think it's all about his height, it's that he chooses to play a one dimensional game and doesn't get enough drive on his groundstrokes to hurt the top guys. Look at Nishikori, he's just slightly taller than Ferrer yet packs quite a punch.

His situation kind of reminds me of Roddick, where he's very consistent and wins a lot but doesn't want to try to make the necessary changes that would give him a shot to beat the top guys.

He's a beneficiary as much as a victim of his era. The drop off in talent after Fed-Murray-Nadal-Djoker, the collectively slower surfaces overall. You can ask if he'd win a Slam in another era, but you should also ask if he could be a Top 5 player making a bunch of Slam QFs and SFs in another era.

He's a great player, no doubt, but I don't see him winning Slams in any other era. As someone pointed out, Chang could only muster one Slam.

Ferrer is light years behind everyone of the real top 4 and everyone knows it. It took almost 7 months in a 12 month rolling system of Nadal not playing any competitive tennis for Ferrer to finally pass him in the rankings which says it all about the enormous gulf between him and the big 4. Until Nadal comes back everyone of the top 3 prays for Ferrer in their half so they have a cakewalk to the final.

Roddick is better than Ferrer overall but it is funny how Ferrer is far and away better than Roddick on both the slowest (clay) and faster (indoor) surfaces.

Click to expand...

Well, Ferrer's movement/defense, fitness and consistency make him a good CC player by default and Roddick was a terrible CC player.

However Ferrer arguably plays his best tennis (especially against the top dogs) on faster surfaces/conditions which allow him to hit through court and put his opponent on the defensive more easily (similar to Hewitt for example).

Ferrer is very consistent, a great returner, absolutely great stamina and he is fast as well. He hit quite flat (by today's standard) and on the rise.

But his game is quite....one-dimensional.

He has no touch, very average volleys skills, and he lacks the ability to hit easy winners.

He has played many of his best matches (tennis-level-wise) on the fastest indoor conditions (fast by today's standard), probably because there he has it way more easy to hit winners and because he is one of the best returners of the tour.

But he has nothing extra-special.

Players like Roddick, Hewitt or Chang were clearly better overall than Ferrer.

I think Ferrer would have been a top-10 player in other eras as well, but I can't see him winning a GS tournament (or more than maybe one M-1000) in any era.

1 win in 8 total finals. Even Murray's got a better win percentage in finals compared to Hoad's pro majors.

Click to expand...

Notice that "0-6" in the 1958 RG final? What happened, his back was wrenched reaching for a ball while he was leading the match.

Your rating of "majors" differs from mine. I would include Kooyong and the Kramer Cup, plus the New Zealand tours, and The Hague in 1957.
The "US Pro" events in Cleveland were unaccredited.
Hoad was a part-timer after 1959.

Notice that "0-6" in the 1958 RG final? What happened, his back was wrenched reaching for a ball while he was leading the match.

Your rating of "majors" differs from mine. I would include Kooyong and the Kramer Cup, plus the New Zealand tours, and The Hague in 1957.
The "US Pro" events in Cleveland were unaccredited.
Hoad was a part-timer after 1959.

Click to expand...

My rating of pro majors is what are defined as pro majors by tennis media authorities that I've seen online.